linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: mention patch changelog in review process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3eddb954-3d90-8fa8-31e5-4e6c356a7421@linaro.org>
Date:   Sun, 3 Apr 2022 09:47:26 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/process: mention patch changelog in review
 process

On 03/04/2022 07:58, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 02/04/22 17.07, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Extend the "Respond to review comments" section of "Submitting patches"
>> with reference to patch changelogs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> index fb496b2ebfd3..9bb4e8c0f635 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
>> @@ -318,7 +318,10 @@ understands what is going on.
>>   Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them
>>   for their time.  Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and
>>   reviewers sometimes get grumpy.  Even in that case, though, respond
>> -politely and address the problems they have pointed out.
>> +politely and address the problems they have pointed out.  When sending a next
>> +version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches
>> +explaining difference aganst previous submission (see
>> +:ref:`the_canonical_patch_format`).
>>   
>>   See Documentation/process/email-clients.rst for recommendations on email
>>   clients and mailing list etiquette.
> 
> What about range-diffs?

What about it? I extend here the versioning of patches, which does not
come with range-diffs.

Best regards,
Krzysztof